WELCOME

In a letter to Comcast Corp. last week, Charter CEO

April 11, 2019 by James Ashley

In a letter to Comcast Corp. last week, Charter CEO John Legere said that the fee "is a cost and we are only offering them one option, so we must make sure consumers have the option to opt out of higher rates at no additional charge."

Comcast's new proposal, along with other cable companies, would raise the TV fees to $11.99 a month from $9.95, and $11.99 to $11.99 after the first year. In total, Charter will add 8,500 high-speed Internet cable customers who can use Charter's new service, including 900 more in the future, including those with cable box plans, to the 1.4 million high-speed Internet subscribers who currently use Charter's service.

Comcast, which has been in negotiations with Charter for several years to introduce its $9.95 fee at a public meeting in June, told the FCC's Committee on Public Information that it was disappointed by the FCC's decision: "We believe that Charter should provide a reasonable and fair set of fees for the public to choose from. Our goal is to reach an agreement that is sustainable for everyone, whether they're cable subscribers or people who are using our service."

The FCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by a man who believes he was racially profiled by a police officer in a case for which he has been accused of racial profiling.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices said police officers are in no position to make racially biased decisions, in part because racial profiling is "unreasonable" and that the police are "inherently" entitled to review the case without "the expectation of reasonable suspicion."

"In an age of heightened suspicion and profiling, the right to a fair trial is at the core of our democracy," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his unanimous decision. The court's decision comes amid high-profile cases where race-related profiling has been a mainstay of policing in the United States.

Lawyers for the man, James T. Johnson, argued in his motion to dismiss the case that the department discriminated against him because his name was on the police report because of his race.

"The department made a mistake by making his name appear on the report, and the officers followed up on that, which is constitutionally permissible," the motion read.

Johnson's attorney, Michael O'Neill, argued that police should not be required